1. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  2. Please refer to this thread for the current Smogon Tier Lists.
  3. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!

Critical Hits (and other such sources of "hax")

Discussion in 'The Policy Review' started by LonelyNess, Nov 8, 2010.

?

Should we remove Critical Hits from the game?

Poll closed Nov 10, 2010.
  1. Yes

    7.3%
  2. No

    92.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LonelyNess

    LonelyNess PK FLASH
    is a Smogon Media Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,357
    With the decision that we don't necessarily have to follow game mechanics in the pursuit of creating a balanced game, I think it necessary to bring up Critical Hits and other sources of luck (such as the secondary effects of moves like Flamethrower and Ice Beam). Simply put: no one likes to be in complete control of a match and have the entire thing ruined by a single crit, freeze, or something that is completely in the control of the RNG. You can say that Crits are a balancing factor, making the use of defensive boosters less viable, but is anyone really using Critical Hits as their only defense against Curse Snorlax? Against Cosmic Power Jirachi? Anyone who is worth their salt in this game has concrete answers to these Pokemon WITHOUT having to rely on crits... and I personally think that the benefit of removing crits (i.e. maybe now we can be comfortable in our ability to switch in Pokemon against opponents because no matter what, if we're meant to survive an attack, we'll survive) far outweigh the benefits of keeping them in the game.

    Anyway, just as a disclaimer, this is in no way an "official" vote... just wanting to see where everyone's opinion's lay.

    Edit: everyone needs to revote, I forgot to make it public.
  2. JabbaTheGriffin

    JabbaTheGriffin Stormblessed
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Battle Spot Leader

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,011
    If we're not going to follow exact in game mechanics what is the reason for keeping crits in the game?

    As far as I see it I guess you could reason a few things:
    a. Crits deviate too far from the game. We only want to deviate from mechanics in extreme circumstances
    b. Slippery slope with other luck based mechanics
    c. crits are beneficial to the game by balance things like cosmic power and calm mind

    As far as a. is concerned I would partly agree that removing crits may be going a little too far in terms of changing game mechanics. However I'd approach the situation in a cost benefit analysis sort of way. Removing crits from the game serves an extreme competitive purpose. Critical hits are a gamebreaking luck factor. They ruin perfectly good matches and serve absolutely no competitive purpose (I'll return to that some more in point c). So as far as point a. goes I would have to say the extreme deviation from the game is worth the competitive upside gained through ridding the game of such a gamebreaking mechanic.

    With point b. I'd say that changing luck mechanics should absolutely stop with critical hits. Every other luck factor is a benefit of using a specific move over another. They give users incentive to use more tbolts/thunders or more ice beams. Basing luck mechanics in moveset choices is competitively acceptable in my eyes.

    As far as c. goes, Lonelyness outlined it pretty well. Critical hits are not a legitimate strategy to attempting to take down defensive boosts. If you want to rely on a crit to beat CM Jirachi have fun with that.

    So with the *extreme* improvement in the competitiveness of the game gained through getting rid of crits, I have to vote yes.

    I know because of point a. that this will probably go nowhere, but I can't vote and argue against something I believe would greatly improve the game as someone who wants the game to be as competitive as possible.
  3. M Dragon

    M Dragon The north wind
    is a Tournament Directoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis the Smogon Tour Season 17 Champion
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,498
    We dont have to strictly follow game mechanics, but I think removing something as important as CHs is going too far, and a huge mistake.
    Simulator mechanics should be as similar to the cartridge mechanics as possible. I would support minor changes (ex: classic sleep clause) for making the metagame better, but removing CHs is removing a major part of competitive pokemon, and that is a huge mistake.
  4. ENZ0

    ENZ0
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,347
    As Jabba said I favor a no crit(hax) game; I voted "yes" because luck doesn't really bring skill to the table, and I personally prefer a fair game. Even though it does increase competitiveness, which Smogon strives to do in conjunction with following the cartridge game as close as possible, I can already predict the amount of opposition to this when it comes down to the official decision. I have to admit though taking crits out of the game might be going a little far, since it's a huge part of the game. As I said, this reflects what would be ideal in competition, but it's a drastic change.
  5. Eo Ut Mortus

    Eo Ut Mortus Elodin Smells
    is a Tournament Directoris a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,532
    From a competitive standpoint, I don't think critical hits make the game better in any way, and if we want to make the game more competitive, we should remove them if we can. This change, however, is different from any mechanics changes we have made so far. I think it's also fair to say that Gamefreak intended critical hits to be part of the game, unlike the Acid Weather glitch (although one cannot actually "prove" this). From a purely objective standpoint, we're changing mechanics in a way that Gamefreak never has (unlike Sleep Clause).

    Giving ourselves the right to change the game mechanics as we please doesn't necessarily mean we can't and/or shouldn't place our own limits on how we change the mechanics; perhaps we should establish whether or not we want to impose such restrictions before making this and other similar decisions.
  6. Synre

    Synre
    is a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis a Past SPL Winner

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,588
    Mentioned this to what I suspect will be the core of the support for this on IRC, but for what it's worth:

    I think this is an extremely liberal interpretation of the results of the poll about changing mechanics. I find the "we aren't even playing Pokemon anymore!!" arguments to be a really irritating catch-all most of the time they're used, but critical hits are over "the line" of what is fair game for us to change to me. In my view, it's our job to make the game as competitive as we can within the restraints we're given unless a situation arises where a significant and probably inadvertant mistake by the developers forces us to take an action in order to keep the game as competitive as it can be. To me we're changing a constraint unnecessarily here, and I can't support that.

    I voted no on the previous poll because I wanted to give us the ability to keep issues open in extreme situations. Stuff like Acid Rain or the Custap glitch(apparently...) which both exist only in a small amount of games and were pretty obviously not intended even before being removed in subsequent games in the series. Stuff like keeping the discussion of implementing Sleep Clause's classic interpretation(though I'll likely abstain on the vote) on the table. I hadn't expected threads like this one to show up as a result of that poll, and if I had, I might have changed my vote(not that it would have made any difference, of course). I'm having a difficult time articulating exactly where I think the line we're crossing is, but this seems like a rather significant change to institute, considering that it is based on something that's clearly working the way the designers intended it to(CH rate hasn't changed in about a decade now) and has an impact on the game that is very subjective.

    I know it's that impact on the game thing that you guys are arguing for the change here based on, and I half-disagree with that element too, but to me we have no place changing core mechanics. I'd have the same reaction if we wanted to change the type chart or add a move or adjust a Pokemon's stats or something, and this is similarly too far for me.
  7. Jackal

    Jackal I'm not retarded I'm Canadian it's different
    is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    6,149
    Our job is to create a metagame with what we are given, not change the game itself. We can do this with bans, clauses, restrictions, etc.
    We are not here to create the most competitive game possible, were here to create the most competitive pokemon game possible.

    Sleep clause is a clause we put on the game in order to make a better metagame. We haven't changed how the sleep moves actually work.

    I am sure if someone analyzed the damage formula and made a small adjustment or changed the base stats of a few pokemon here and there we could make the game much, much more competitive than it currently is, but that is not what we are here to do. And this proposed change is bordering on the same lines as those.
  8. LonelyNess

    LonelyNess PK FLASH
    is a Smogon Media Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,357
    I'm pretty sure that on Wifi if you use a Sleep move against a non-sleeping target, it puts it to sleep if it hits (Insomnia not counted), regardless of whether or not there is another sleeping Pokemon. This is very obviously changing the way sleep moves actually work.

    And I'm not against that, just like I'm not against removing crits.
  9. Jackal

    Jackal I'm not retarded I'm Canadian it's different
    is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    6,149
    It's not changing the way it works, it is changing the way we are allowing it to be used in our metagame, aka implementing a "restriction" or "clause".

    The only likewise thing you can do with CHs that I can see is taking the %chance of a CH happening (let's say that it is is 2%, I really have no idea what it is sadly) and implementing a "CH Clause" such that if you get 1 ch in the first 50 attacking turns of your battle (aka 2%), then you cannot get another one in those 50 turns.

    While I am not at all saying that the above is even viable, I am just saying that it at least takes what has been given to us and "restricts" it in some way to improve pokemon as a competitive game. If we could ban critical hits I am sure we would, but it is not something we can choose or not choose to ban, we would actually have to remove it from the game to do that. So the best we can do is come up with a "Clause" like the one I mentioned above. We have done so for Sleep Clause and OHKO Clause in the past.

    So unless someone can come up with a better "CH Clause", I think the answer to this thread will always be "No" since no one is here to reprogram the game, only to take what we have and try to work with it.
  10. Philip7086

    Philip7086 Myuu
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winneris a SPL Winnerdefeated the Smogon Frontier

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,083
    lol, this is absurd. I'm honestly in shock that you would take the results of the Smogon Philosophy poll this far, despite the OP clearly saying:

    Throwing out critical hits and "other such sources of 'hax'" that affect almost every single match is just about as drastic as you can get in Pokemon, and I'm pretty much in disbelief that you even thought for a second that this would be considered. The funniest part about this is the fact that people brushed aside any mention of a slippery slope argument when discussing whether or not we should strictly follow in-game mechanics in the past, because they said it was ridiculous to even assume anyone would make a serious attempt to remove critical hits and "other such sources of hax'". I am not going to even dignify this thread with a vote, and I'm very disappointed in your completely misguided interpretation of the poll I set up.

    Absolutely not.
  11. eric the espeon

    eric the espeon maybe I just misunderstood
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,694
    no.. i heard someone talking about this on irc and thought it was a joke. please say this is some elaborate April fools which missed the intended target by several months. If this change or anything like it goes through, Smogon will within a few months no longer be the most important competitive Pokemon site and a huge number of users will simply move away, including myself. It's.. beyond inconceivable that a single PR member is actually supporting this.

    We should not make mechanical changes with a large competitive impact unless that impact is absolutely and entirely required to have a playable metagame. We play Pokemon.

    And never bring up balance as a general term for "something you want in a metagame", it is quite directly not that. It refers to balance between different Pokemon's, strategy's, move's, or other game element's comparative strength. And can in every case I know of so far this can be almost perfectly dealt with by bans. Still, I will reword the paragraph because it seems that some people do not understand what was meant by it.

    I say this to anyone who has votes "Yes": If you honestly don't like playing Pokemon, go play another game. Or better yet, go and make a modded server. It's not all that hard, just decide what you want and make a public call for help setting it up. Remove the R variable in the damage formula. Remove misses. Remove secondary effects. Remove Speed ties. If you don't like hax, you're in the wrong game, please leave it for those who wish to play Pokemon (and for semantic pedants who say we're not playing Pokemon if we change anything at all, every sim ever has had glitches. We've never played Pokemon. Or take the common sense route. Something close enough competitively to Pokemon counts as Pokemon).
  12. Hipmonlee

    Hipmonlee Have a rice day
    is a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,323
    Uhh, the sleep clause we call classic sleep clause definitely changes the way it works. This is what has been voted on and accepted by the community..

    [edit] - well, not exactly I guess, but it has been theoretically approved anyway..

    Have a nice day.
  13. Erazor

    Erazor ✓ Just Doug It
    is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,670
    No, no, no. Those who voted 'yes' in the previous poll actually brought this up as part of their arguments, don't go strengthen their arguments!!

    When we voted 'no' on that poll, I for one voted just to keep the option of taking out shit like the acid rain glitch. I'm sure most of the others voted so for similar reasons. Playing without a glitch(yes, it is a glitch) that can potentially break the game is still pokemon - playing a game without critical hits is NOT Pokemon.
  14. undisputed

    undisputed
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,116
    As much as I hate critical hits, I think they should stay. For example, I would say Critical Hits are roughly equivalent to getting DD Dragonite burned by Heatran's Fire Blast. Both instances Dragonite is pretty much screwed, but what if we got rid of Critical Hits here? Couldn't we logically take a small step and get rid of Fire Blast's burn rate since it is similar in Hax value? And if we start removing that sort of Hax, we are starting to change the way moves affect the game. Damn, what if lava plume didn't burn 30% of the time? That's Hax, albeit more likely Hax, but it is still what would be considered as a lucky effect. Essentially, I think getting rid of Critical hits is a big step and can lend itself to other changes we feel might 'improve the game'. There's a line between Acid weather (like obvious glitches) and changing fundamental properties of the game that Game Freak intended.
  15. Heist

    Heist
    is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winneris a SPL Winner

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,317
    I think the game would strictly be "better" as in "increases the chance of the better player actually winning" if critical hits were removed, so from a competitive stand point, this would be a step into the future. However, I think by removing critical hits we are increasing the gap between simulators, Wi-Fi and in-game.

    I know I am not exactly one for adhering to in-game mechanics, I think removing critical hits is going a bit too far. We play Pokemon, not some form of game derived from Pokemon that has been created by a select group of individuals. I think critical hits are an essential part of Pokemon, really.
  16. Bologo

    Bologo Have fun with birds and bees.
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,841
    I personally think this is a horrible idea, because while putting something like classic sleep clause in doesn't really nerf any moves, and neither does taking away acid rain, taking away crits nerfs a whole ton of crap that really shouldn't be.

    Moves/items that are explicitly affected by crits:

    - Mountain Storm/Ice Breath: Now made into a craptastic 40 BP move on par with Scratch
    - Focus Energy: On par with Splash
    - High Crit moves (several of these): Now these moves are all low BP, super-exclusive, or have crap accuracy for no reason
    - Scope Lens: Useless item
    - Stick: Doesn't really matter, but also useless
    - Lansat Berry: Useless
    - Super Luck: On par with having no ability (although I suppose these users have an alternate ability, but it's still not fair to them at all)

    There might be more, but basically what I'm trying to say is that unlike classic sleep clause and removal of acid rain, which only really have implicit effects on the actual gameplay since they don't change much, removing crits has a very explicit effect on the game, enough that it completely changes the mechanics of several moves and items to render them useless.

    IMO, when we start completely mutilating stuff like moves and items by changing/removing/adding a mechanic, that's crossing the line, and therefore I believe that crits need to stay if we want to play pokemon.
  17. Heysup

    Heysup Monsters are dangerous and kings are dying like flies.
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    5,571
    The "sticking strictly to the cartridge" option was an absolute one. People voted "no" because we have no idea what could possibly occur in the future and in general, people avoid absolute options with no breathing room. This, as well, conveniently allows us to use more practical answers to problems (ie the possibility of classic sleep clause instead of a complicated one creating a win condition - though I don't really care either way) as opposed to dealing with glitches and such.

    The point was not to start changing the foundations of Pokemon just because we made one small change. Critical hits have been proven to not be a glitch or mistake by GF, they have been implemented in every game. The Acid Rain glitch is quite obviously a glitch because it makes no logical sense and was only apparent in Platinum.

    The fact that this is even seriously brought up concerns me. I am fucking embarrassed to have this thread in Policy Review, and frankly, anywhere except firebot.
  18. Kristoph

    Kristoph

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Doesn't surprise me at all that this was brought up, since it was my exact argument against making an explicit "we can modify mechanics" policy in the first place. I am surprised at how quickly it was brought up, though. Basically this post is a big "too late" to Erazer's "don't go strengthen their arguments!!" post. If people are already bringing up this nonsense, seems pretty obvious that we should be worried about what happens a year or two down the line.
  19. mtr

    mtr

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,773
    Everyone's already put up logic-based arguments against banning critical hits, so I'm going to posit a realpolitik argument: banning critical hits would cause a massive upwelling of anger against smogon, a disconnect between the cartridge and simulator players on the site, and a chance for more constructionist (adhering strictly to cartridge mechanics) rival websites to establish their own policies with respectable followings.

    It's one thing to ban Acid Weather, it's quite another to ban Critical Hits. If we go back to the argument of "designer intent", it's obvious that Game Freak intended for critical hits to be a part of the game due to items like Scope Lens (aside from the fact that they exist). There is nothing that makes it clear that Game Freak wanted Acid Weather.
  20. jrrrrrrr

    jrrrrrrr wubwubwub
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Server Moderatoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,172
    I completely agree with this. This is a serious stretch of the game-mechanics poll, so far a stretch that I almost want to suggest this topic is trolling considering the people who voted "yes". Luckily "no" won in the game mechanics poll, or else we wouldn't be able to have a vote and discussion on the issue.

    Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but does this mean you would support banning critical hits, but not attacks that can miss, flinch, freeze, burn, poison, paralyze or give stat boosts/drops? What is the difference between choosing Night Slash over Crunch when you seem to not care about the difference between Thunderbolt and Thunder?

    They are a completely legitimate strategy for this purpose, especially since things like Encore and Taunt have been nerfed in BW. Haze is "lol" and most common pHazers are destroyed by the most common defense boosters. If you make one wrong switch against a Defense booster you can be in for a long battle with no further thinking required from your opponent. This is especially true since we're seriously considering allowing people to see each other's teams before battles. If you have a bad team matchup, you may not even have a choice in the matter in how you get to defend against Defense boosters due to the number of viable trappers in OU.

    I don't really see how the game is improved from a competitive standpoint by removing critical hits, they balance out in the long run. If Smogon changed its style of tournaments to something more befitting of Pokemon (i.e. not single elimination), we wouldn't even have to have this discussion.
  21. Ulevo

    Ulevo

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    492
    Although the overwhelming majority of the Policy Review members here realize how silly and disappointing the suggestion being proposed here is, it's instances like these that make me feel fortunate that we do in fact have Philip7086 and the other five members to "put their foot down" where it is appropriate.
  22. JabbaTheGriffin

    JabbaTheGriffin Stormblessed
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Battle Spot Leader

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,011
    But still on average if you don't have a legitimate defense to defensive boosters you're more than likely going to lose the battle anyway. Relying on a crit in situations like these is a last resort effort on the part of someone who should lose the battle.

    This is a very good point. Crits don't balance out in the longrun of a single elim best of one tourney. In the tour they balance out because of the structure of being able to battle 2 times a week over the course of 12 weeks. In spl/wcop they balance out because it's a team setup where there are 9/10 battles. I guess my biggest problem is our big official tournament. Our official tournament should encourage skill but its setup really doesn't. I guess if we're not going to get rid of crits (we're not going to) we should definitely try to balance them out in our tournament structure. This is clearly a discussion for a different topic though (one that has been discussed before I believe) but maybe it's time for a reevaluation.

    Also just want to reiterate what I've said numerous times on IRC. I do think that removing crits is a "drastic" change and that it's going too far. I just can't defend something I feel is so detrimental to the game (especially in Smogon Tournament which is our official tournament which by no means emphasizes skill and the longrun balance of luck).
  23. cim

    cim happiness is such hard work
    is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,412
    Critical hits and critical hit managment are in my mind a very balanced and important addition to Pokemon for the very specific reason that they allow stat up Pokemon to be beaten. This makes pure defense boosting breakable and requires teams to use other safeguards (Substitute, etc) to stop a sweep from being broken by a single Critical Hit. Many Pokemon that could counter by statting up are removed from this consideration because of Critical Hits.

    But on top of this, probability managment is a fundamental skill in Pokemon; it's really what the entire game is about. Taking out an element of probability does not help Pokemon, it merely offsets the managment of probability into some other part of the game like teambuilding.

    The only people that still complain about critical hits are the people that put far, far too much emphasis on a single Pokemon battle, which is analogus to saying Aces are broken in Poker because a draw of an Ace makes you more likely to win that hand. Pokemon is a game of the long term.

    Now onto the "real point"

    Thank you for making this point as it is one I have been trying to scream at the top of my lungs for years.
  24. jrrrrrrr

    jrrrrrrr wubwubwub
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Server Moderatoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,172
    Well, you can have a legit defense against boosters but lose them in the long run of the match. Not every match goes exactly to plan, which conveniently won't be an issue anymore if we reveal everyone's teams, no planning will be required!

    It is a last resort, but there are so many other places in the game that you can rely on luck that it doesn't make sense to me that people are singling out crits. I don't see the difference between waiting for a crit and hoping that you do better than average damage for a KO.
  25. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight Well-shuffled and flush
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,491
    If a 6.25% chance of happening is too damaging, clearly 10% and 30% chances of hax are to be avoided as well. After all that burn or freeze on your physical sweeper has ruined a game for you.

    Crit removers cannot possibly be serious if they believe "it ruins a game" is a serious argument. There is no such thing as "it shouldn't have happened" in Pokemon. Every effect has a set chance of happening and you calculate that into your strategy. Why do we hype Boiling Water? It has the same chance of burning as Sheer Cold has of hitting, after all, and Sheer Cold should never hit because it could ruin a game. Critical hits serve as an internal check to defensive Pokemon. You don't rely on them, however they inherently reduce the viability of anything that spams defense boosters. There is no "improvement" in a crit-less metagame, it's simply a different metagame where Smogon indulges childish fantasies that we still play competitive Pokemon.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)